|
On November 15 2018 06:31 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 07:09 litLikeBic wrote:On November 10 2018 06:18 brickrd wrote:
on the skin debate, anyone ever suggest making skins unranked-only? like, if you queue unranked you see the skins, if you queue ranked you don't? seems like a somewhat reasonable compromise to me... that way the issue of game balance being altered is mitigated since people who are laddering seriously for rank are unaffected can we please stop with this already? when will you realize it's fruitless to even ponder the disabling of skins? every time there's a thread on skins, we get the same predictable posts whining about how they supposedly alter game balance. if they do alter balance, is it really so gamebreaking? is it the end of the world if you're rank 90 master instead of rank 70 master because jimmy's big ling wings obscured your view? people who buy skins want to be able to set the skins they see, including opponents' units. it keeps coming up because it's a really obvious improvement that a lot of customers would enjoy and i think they might sell more of the 3-race packs if they did it. win-win i know in every other game it's the same as sc2 is now (player sets his own skins and other people have to see his choices). but if someone with authority at blizzard would take 5 mins to think about it, it's pretty clear that sc2 should be an exception on how skins work. it's gonna be brought up in every warchest thread until they implement this improvement
That seems counter condusive to the point of skins. People use skin to show off, thats a giant part of the game for people. They drop money or grind in order to acquire skins to peacock.
If someone could just set my skin to default, then that whole aspect is gone for me. Thats why there are few, if any, games with that option.
|
Austria24422 Posts
I think there should be an option to turn skins off for players, but only for tournament play. Viewers should be able to see the skins in tournaments, but I can understand if players don't want them when it matters. On the ladder, though, you shouldn't be able to turn them off. lestye is right, a big point of skins is to show them off.
|
People should really not talk for the pro's, honestly they spend the majority of their days playing the game, they get used to the skins pretty fast, it's the person that plays 1h a week that has the bigger problems with skins, because things like total number of units or even unit differentiation in big clumps becomes a problem since experience is often the biggest factor in assessing the correct army size and composition at a glance.
For tournament use, it should just be the tournament organizer setting the rules, Just tell the players they can't use skins and if they do their desqualified.
It's not really a big deal. I do agree that some skins do loose some of the clarity for the game, but it's an extremely low price for keeping this game alive and growing.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
if I can't make my enemy suffer through seeing my anime wife zerglings why would I even buy them
|
Skins aren't a problem. Poorly designed skins that disrupt gameplay (roaches with spikes, black immortals+stalkers, hallu collossi, purple banes etc.) are.
|
United Kingdom20340 Posts
On November 15 2018 22:04 Ej_ wrote:
Skins aren't a problem. Poorly designed skins that disrupt gameplay (roaches with spikes, black immortals+stalkers, hallu collossi, purple banes etc.) are.
Exactly this. Right from the start there was that one zergling skin which made it much harder to tell how many zerglings there were in a pack, so it was a competitive advantage. Other skins make units look similar to other units in the base skin or the currently selected skin so that you can't tell them apart at a glance or in peripheral vision.
|
On November 15 2018 21:32 Bazik wrote:
People should really not talk for the pro's, honestly they spend the majority of their days playing the game, they get used to the skins pretty fast, it's the person that plays 1h a week that has the bigger problems with skins, because things like total number of units or even unit differentiation in big clumps becomes a problem since experience is often the biggest factor in assessing the correct army size and composition at a glance.
For tournament use, it should just be the tournament organizer setting the rules, Just tell the players they can't use skins and if they do their desqualified.
It's not really a big deal. I do agree that some skins do loose some of the clarity for the game, but it's an extremely low price for keeping this game alive and growing.
regarding tournaments, i think thats what is happening now.
i think olli is suggesting is that skins to be turned on for spectators, but not for competitors in the tournaments that disallow skins
|
On November 15 2018 21:17 Olli wrote:
I think there should be an option to turn skins off for players, but only for tournament play. Viewers should be able to see the skins in tournaments, but I can understand if players don't want them when it matters. On the ladder, though, you shouldn't be able to turn them off. lestye is right, a big point of skins is to show them off.
How about this being handled in discretion, then? Just let there be no option for players to check if their opponents can see skins and show-off's never will even know (kinda like ranked/unranked being in the same pool regarding matchmaking), win-win for everyone, posers think they "impress" others, abusers think they "disrupt/irritate" others, skin haters can just play the game and not give a single fuck, skin lovers can customize all the skins to their liking and throw more $$$ at Activision Blizzard.
Again, I really have to reiterate how beyond stupid this whole peacock-argument is to me, I mean, fine, I get it, people strive for recognition and acceptance within their social groups, or let's say, the majority of society, but aren't people first and foremost attracted to buy certain skins because of their aesthetic appeal?
I loved to grind ladder games back then to get my BC portrait and yeah, of course I took some pide into being able to show that to my opponent during the loading screen, but I'd like to argue that content you unlock by just playing the game, be it either pulling off extravagant things for achievements or delivering on the grindy side of things, like farming competitive wins for a portrait have a whole different meaning as opposed to this "buy yourself some 'sense of pride and accomplishment' for just $20" bullshit developers try to cash in on nowadays.
If people can't bear the thought that they could be the only ones in their matches seeing the skins they've bought and that would put them off from playing the game, they should really get their priorities straight or try to invest their money into other things.
I still would doubt heavily that skin sales would shrink substantially with a disable skin option implemented like I stated above and I'd also like to agree to the point others have made that SC2 should not have its skin policy dictated by other games that don't even come close to the visual clutter that StarCraft can be a lot of the time.
And since you can qualify for WCS via ladder placement, ranked ladder play should absolutely HAVE an option to disable skins altogether, there are plenty of game modes that could still have them (unranked, team games, co-op, campaign, customs).
|
I really wish we were able to disable these skins, I actually cant see the banelings very well in a lot of situations because of the skins which is ridiculous
|
i have a couple of counterpoints to the "i want people to see when i have skins" argument
1) why? you're bragging that you spent money? i don't really get what you're "showing off"? do you think buying skins is "impressive" in some way?
2) theoretically, if they COULD be disabled, how would it even affect your experience? you're still sitting there playing the same game and everything looks the same for you. you're literally having less fun because your opponent sees normal units? what?
i mean, i KIND of get it... but on a deeper level i do not get it at all.
|
On November 20 2018 10:47 brickrd wrote:
i have a couple of counterpoints to the "i want people to see when i have skins" argument
1) why? you're bragging that you spent money? i don't really get what you're "showing off"? do you think buying skins is "impressive" in some way?
2) theoretically, if they COULD be disabled, how would it even affect your experience? you're still sitting there playing the same game and everything looks the same for you. you're literally having less fun because your opponent sees normal units? what?
i mean, i KIND of get it... but on a deeper level i do not get it at all.
I guess some people just like to show off their skins and allowing players to disable skins may discourage these people from making purchase. Pretty sure Blizz wouldn't want anything like this to happen.
|
On November 20 2018 10:47 brickrd wrote:
i have a couple of counterpoints to the "i want people to see when i have skins" argument
1) why? you're bragging that you spent money? i don't really get what you're "showing off"? do you think buying skins is "impressive" in some way?
2) theoretically, if they COULD be disabled, how would it even affect your experience? you're still sitting there playing the same game and everything looks the same for you. you're literally having less fun because your opponent sees normal units? what?
i mean, i KIND of get it... but on a deeper level i do not get it at all.
Same reason you might wear certain clothes to be perceived a certain way; i.e., to control how you are perceived. I do not know why it is so hard for some people in this thread to get that. I thought that it is common knowledge that people are generally superficial and like to show off.
Blizz know this and that, consequently, they will make more money by not having a disable option, so you will NEVER get such an option.
|
On November 20 2018 14:52 litLikeBic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2018 10:47 brickrd wrote:
i have a couple of counterpoints to the "i want people to see when i have skins" argument
1) why? you're bragging that you spent money? i don't really get what you're "showing off"? do you think buying skins is "impressive" in some way?
2) theoretically, if they COULD be disabled, how would it even affect your experience? you're still sitting there playing the same game and everything looks the same for you. you're literally having less fun because your opponent sees normal units? what?
i mean, i KIND of get it... but on a deeper level i do not get it at all. Same reason you might wear certain clothes to be perceived a certain way; i.e., to control how you are perceived. I do not know why it is so hard for some people in this thread to get that. I thought that it is common knowledge that people are generally superficial and like to show off. Blizz know this and that, consequently, they will make more money by not having a disable option, so you will NEVER get such an option.
What do they "know"? Have anyone done the calculations? And how could he if noone tested it? Having no "disable" button is just a consequence of blizzard being totally indifferent on the matter. The only good thing about skins is the higher you get the less skin abusers you actually encounter, as all "show-offers" dwell in 2s, 3s and leagues corresponding to their levels. Motivates to grind games.
|
On November 20 2018 18:07 insitelol wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2018 14:52 litLikeBic wrote:On November 20 2018 10:47 brickrd wrote:
i have a couple of counterpoints to the "i want people to see when i have skins" argument
1) why? you're bragging that you spent money? i don't really get what you're "showing off"? do you think buying skins is "impressive" in some way?
2) theoretically, if they COULD be disabled, how would it even affect your experience? you're still sitting there playing the same game and everything looks the same for you. you're literally having less fun because your opponent sees normal units? what?
i mean, i KIND of get it... but on a deeper level i do not get it at all. Same reason you might wear certain clothes to be perceived a certain way; i.e., to control how you are perceived. I do not know why it is so hard for some people in this thread to get that. I thought that it is common knowledge that people are generally superficial and like to show off. Blizz know this and that, consequently, they will make more money by not having a disable option, so you will NEVER get such an option. What do they "know"? Have anyone done the calculations? And how could he if noone tested it? Having no "disable" button is just a consequence of blizzard being totally indifferent on the matter. The only good thing about skins is the higher you get the less skin abusers you actually encounter, as all "show-offers" dwell in 2s, 3s and leagues corresponding to their levels. Motivates to grind games.
It's not just Blizzard, it's EVERYONE I can think of. Hence why no game that offer skins offers that option, whether it to be Dota 2, Street Fighter V, League of Legends, Path of Exile, CS:GO, Warframe, Rainbow 6, Fortnite, etc.
|
On November 20 2018 20:07 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2018 18:07 insitelol wrote:On November 20 2018 14:52 litLikeBic wrote:On November 20 2018 10:47 brickrd wrote:
i have a couple of counterpoints to the "i want people to see when i have skins" argument
1) why? you're bragging that you spent money? i don't really get what you're "showing off"? do you think buying skins is "impressive" in some way?
2) theoretically, if they COULD be disabled, how would it even affect your experience? you're still sitting there playing the same game and everything looks the same for you. you're literally having less fun because your opponent sees normal units? what?
i mean, i KIND of get it... but on a deeper level i do not get it at all. Same reason you might wear certain clothes to be perceived a certain way; i.e., to control how you are perceived. I do not know why it is so hard for some people in this thread to get that. I thought that it is common knowledge that people are generally superficial and like to show off. Blizz know this and that, consequently, they will make more money by not having a disable option, so you will NEVER get such an option. What do they "know"? Have anyone done the calculations? And how could he if noone tested it? Having no "disable" button is just a consequence of blizzard being totally indifferent on the matter. The only good thing about skins is the higher you get the less skin abusers you actually encounter, as all "show-offers" dwell in 2s, 3s and leagues corresponding to their levels. Motivates to grind games. It's not just Blizzard, it's EVERYONE I can think of. Hence why no game that offer skins offers that option, whether it to be Dota 2, Street Fighter V, League of Legends, Path of Exile, CS:GO, Warframe, Rainbow 6, Fortnite, etc.
Well, you apparently fail to see the differing impact skins have in these games:
Dota 2/LoL - MOBA games with a lot less unit cluttering/makes it way easier to differentiate between 5 enemy heroes
Street Fighter - fighting game with only two characters on screen at a time, focus lies on learning animation frames to react accordingly
Path of Exile - really, such a shitty example to come up with in this regard, but ok. Co-op hack’n’slay game, literally nothing competitive about it
CS:GO - FPS with weapon skins/gloves(facepalm), literally 0 impact on competitive play, weird that valve didn’t implement a plethora of character skins, yet, maybe, because that would not sit that well with the competitive players?!
And all of these games except CS:GO are f2p and were designed to be from the start, I see SC2 in a separate category because of the nature of the game and it should be treated as such.
Oh, and SC:R has skins in it, but also an option to disable them/replace them with the standard sprite, just saying.
|
|
|
I don't get why people are still discussing this, let's see if I can help a bit more.
Having other players be forced to see the skin one player bought adds value to the purchase, hence the idea of players being able to disable that option devalues the whole sale. Hence what you guys are arguing for is devaluing the skins.
I understand you guys don't like it, but the reality is this is still a business and blizzard will always try to cram the highest amount of value in their products, specialy like in this case where it costs them nothing.
|
On November 20 2018 21:35 Bazik wrote:
I don't get why people are still discussing this, let's see if I can help a bit more.
Having other players be forced to see the skin one player bought adds value to the purchase, hence the idea of players being able to disable that option devalues the whole sale. Hence what you guys are arguing for is devaluing the skins.
I understand you guys don't like it, but the reality is this is still a business and blizzard will always try to cram the highest amount of value in their products, specialy like in this case where it costs them nothing.
So, according to your logic we should just accept this behaviour and give in/move on? I strongly disagree and will continue to voice my discontent with this situation on every relevant occasion possible.
Edit: I’d also like to add that “value” is such a subjective term, especially for a digital item, and what does it even mean in your context? Personal value for the buyer, because he thinks he has obtained an item of unbelievable scarcity? Or value for the seller since the forced display of such items has the potential of increasing sales?
From my personal experience I can tell you that people who dislike skins to begin with are not more likely to spend money on them just because they are forced to see them.
|
On November 20 2018 21:35 Bazik wrote:
I don't get why people are still discussing this, let's see if I can help a bit more.
Having other players be forced to see the skin one player bought adds value to the purchase, hence the idea of players being able to disable that option devalues the whole sale. Hence what you guys are arguing for is devaluing the skins.
I understand you guys don't like it, but the reality is this is still a business and blizzard will always try to cram the highest amount of value in their products, specialy like in this case where it costs them nothing.
I am fine with skins but there are a few exceptions. lings with wings should never happened. Ultralisk simulant skin is far better than the CE version.
|
On November 20 2018 21:13 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2018 20:07 lestye wrote:On November 20 2018 18:07 insitelol wrote:On November 20 2018 14:52 litLikeBic wrote:On November 20 2018 10:47 brickrd wrote:
i have a couple of counterpoints to the "i want people to see when i have skins" argument
1) why? you're bragging that you spent money? i don't really get what you're "showing off"? do you think buying skins is "impressive" in some way?
2) theoretically, if they COULD be disabled, how would it even affect your experience? you're still sitting there playing the same game and everything looks the same for you. you're literally having less fun because your opponent sees normal units? what?
i mean, i KIND of get it... but on a deeper level i do not get it at all. Same reason you might wear certain clothes to be perceived a certain way; i.e., to control how you are perceived. I do not know why it is so hard for some people in this thread to get that. I thought that it is common knowledge that people are generally superficial and like to show off. Blizz know this and that, consequently, they will make more money by not having a disable option, so you will NEVER get such an option. What do they "know"? Have anyone done the calculations? And how could he if noone tested it? Having no "disable" button is just a consequence of blizzard being totally indifferent on the matter. The only good thing about skins is the higher you get the less skin abusers you actually encounter, as all "show-offers" dwell in 2s, 3s and leagues corresponding to their levels. Motivates to grind games. It's not just Blizzard, it's EVERYONE I can think of. Hence why no game that offer skins offers that option, whether it to be Dota 2, Street Fighter V, League of Legends, Path of Exile, CS:GO, Warframe, Rainbow 6, Fortnite, etc. Well, you apparently fail to see the differing impact skins have in these games: Dota 2/LoL - MOBA games with a lot less unit cluttering/makes it way easier to differentiate between 5 enemy heroes Street Fighter - fighting game with only two characters on screen at a time, focus lies on learning animation frames to react accordingly Path of Exile - really, such a shitty example to come up with in this regard, but ok. Co-op hack’n’slay game, literally nothing competitive about it CS:GO - FPS with weapon skins/gloves(facepalm), literally 0 impact on competitive play, weird that valve didn’t implement a plethora of character skins, yet, maybe, because that would not sit that well with the competitive players?! And all of these games except CS:GO are f2p and were designed to be from the start, I see SC2 in a separate category because of the nature of the game and it should be treated as such. Oh, and SC:R has skins in it, but also an option to disable them/replace them with the standard sprite, just saying.
Actually, as you mentioned it. Almost all of the competetive games include MTX as a part on their monetization system because the games are free. I payed for my copy of SC2 3 times. Now they are adding chests and skins to keep the game alive and im all for that, but can't at least those who purchased the game have such an option? I can even pay a 4rth time for this. The sole fact BW has it and SC2 does not doesn't make any sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
